United States v. Barham, 4th Cir. (2011)
United States v. Barham, 4th Cir. (2011)
No. 10-4308
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.
Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (3:09-cr-00309-CMC-2)
Submitted:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Nelson Eddy Barham, Jr., was convicted, following his
guilty
plea,
unlawful
U.S.C.
of
conspiracy
activity
1956(h)
(cocaine
(2006)
to
launder
distribution),
(Count
the
proceeds
of
an
in
violation
of
18
One),
and
knowingly
and
was
an
insufficient
factual
basis
to
support
his
guilty plea to Count One and that the district court abused its
discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
For the following reasons, we reject these arguments and affirm.
Barhams indictment stemmed from his involvement in a
money
laundering
transaction.
Acting
on
behalf
of
Robert
Garrick
Barham contends
knowing
that
the
purchase
money
came
from
cocaine
Rule
11(b)(3)
provides
that
[b]efore
entering
v.
Mastrapa,
509
F.3d
652,
659-60
(4th
United
Cir.
2007)
United
States v. Ketchum, 550 F.3d 363, 366-67 (4th Cir. 2008); see
also United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 120 (4th Cir. 1991)
(noting that Rule 11 does not require the district court to
establish through its colloquy that a factual basis exists for
the
plea).
satisfied
The
that
district
there
is
court
a
need
sufficient
only
be
factual
subjectively
basis
for
the offense.
Cir. 1997).
We
have
carefully
reviewed
the
record
and
conclude
there was ample support for the district courts factual basis
determination.
First
and
foremost,
3
in
his
plea
agreement,
Barham
stipulated
to
knowing
or
believing
that
the
purchase
challenge
this
stipulation.
Moreover,
Barhams
also
the
district
court
erred
by
We review a denial of
motion,
this
court
considers
the
six
factors
has offered credible evidence that his plea was not knowing or
not voluntary; (2) the defendant has credibly asserted his legal
innocence; (3) there has been a delay between the entering of
4
the plea and the filing of the motion; (4) the defendant has had
close assistance of competent counsel; (5) the withdrawal will
cause prejudice to the government; and (6) the withdrawal will
inconvenience the court and waste judicial resources.
Id.
in
denying
Barhams
motion.
Barham
offered
no
evidence that his plea was not knowing or voluntary, and he did
not credibly assert his legal innocence.
Accordingly, we reject
these
reasons,
we
affirm
the
district
courts
and
materials
legal
before
contentions
the
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
the
aid
the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED